Re: /usr/sbin/sendmail specification proposal, draft 5
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> To deliver electronic mail (email), applications shall use either the
>> interface provided by /usr/sbin/sendmail (described here) or the SMTP
>> protocol (RFC 821 using a TCP connection on port 25 to either the
>> local host or a remote host).
H Peter Anvin <email@example.com> writes:
> Using a remote host, as well as using a nonstandard port and SMTP over
> SSL, require application-specific configuration and is thus beyond the
> scope of the standard. We could make a specification, but personally
> I think it's a bad idea -- it would mean inventing a new interface
> which no app currently supports.
If you're saying that we shouldn't limit applications to only the above
two options (SMTP over SSL being another option), then I agree.
I meant to say that LSB applications must deliver mail by
a) using /usr/sbin/sendmail
b) support SMTP over TCP on server port 25 to the local host;
support SMTP over TCP on server port 25 to a remote host
So, it would *not* be sufficient for LSB compliance to support *only*
SMTP over SSL.
To rephrase things a bit:
To deliver electronic mail (email), applications shall use either
the interface provided by /usr/sbin/sendmail (described here) or
an internet protocol such as SMTP (RFC 821). If an application
is unable to deliver mail via the /usr/sbin/sendmail interface,
then it shall minimally support using SMTP over TCP connecting to
port 25 of either the local host or a remote host.
I'm considering dropping the last sentence entirely. The point was to
require applications to use /usr/sbin/sendmail instead of mail or
mailx. I'm not sure I want to go too far beyond that.